At the wire taping that's been going on. Bush needs assurance it's legal now with Dems in charge they know what might be coming. I think this has something to do with that judges ruling it's very illegal. Even worse then Bill's B J job. Almost right up there with Nixon's abuse of power play.
Attorney General To Look 2nd Time
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
Don't see much happening DJV--the judge was Clinton appointed ultra liberal dame and appears she is only one agreeing with these civil liberties groups (ACLU ect) Here is her newest agenda--
Nov 29, 1:06 AM (ET)
By LINDA DEUTSCH
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutionally vague, according to a ruling released Tuesday.
The Humanitarian Law Project had challenged Bush's order, which blocked all the assets of groups or individuals he named as "specially designated global terrorists" after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
"This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists," said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. "It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era."
The case centered on two groups, the Liberation Tigers, which seeks a separate homeland for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, a political organization representing the interests of Kurds in Turkey.
U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins enjoined the government from blocking the assets of the two groups. The same judge two years ago invalidated portions of the Patriot Act.
Both groups consider the Nov. 21 ruling a victory; both had been designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations.
Cole said the judge's ruling does not invalidate the hundreds of other designated terrorist groups on the list but "calls them into question."
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said, "We are currently reviewing the decision and we have made no determination what the government's next step will be."
A White House spokeswoman declined to immediately comment. At the time of his order creating the list, Bush declared that the "grave acts of terrorism" and the "continuing and immediate threat of future attacks" constituted a national emergency.
The judge's 45-page ruling was a reversal of her own tentative findings last July in which she indicated she would uphold wide powers asserted by Bush under an anti-terror financing law. She delayed her ruling then to allow more legal briefs to be filed.
She also struck down the provision in which Bush had authorized the secretary of the treasury to designate anyone who "assists, sponsors or provides services to" or is "otherwise associated with" a designated group.
However, she let stand sections of the order that penalize those who provide "services" to designated terrorist groups. She said such services would include the humanitarian aid and rights training proposed by the plaintiffs.
The Humanitarian Law Project planned to appeal that part of the ruling, Cole said.
"We are pleased the court rejected many of the constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiffs, including their challenge to the government's ban on providing services to terrorist organizations," Miller said Tuesday. "However, we believe the court erred in finding that certain other aspects of the executive order were unconstitutional."
The ruling was still considered a victory, Cole said.
"Even in fighting terrorism the president cannot be given a blank check to blacklist anyone he considers a bad guy or a bad group and you can't imply guilt by association," Cole said.
In 2004, Collins ruled that portions of the Patriot Act were too vague and, even after Congress amended the act in 2005, she ruled the provisions remained too vague to be understood by a person of average intelligence and were therefore unconstitutional.
Nov 29, 1:06 AM (ET)
By LINDA DEUTSCH
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutionally vague, according to a ruling released Tuesday.
The Humanitarian Law Project had challenged Bush's order, which blocked all the assets of groups or individuals he named as "specially designated global terrorists" after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
"This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists," said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. "It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era."
The case centered on two groups, the Liberation Tigers, which seeks a separate homeland for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, a political organization representing the interests of Kurds in Turkey.
U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins enjoined the government from blocking the assets of the two groups. The same judge two years ago invalidated portions of the Patriot Act.
Both groups consider the Nov. 21 ruling a victory; both had been designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations.
Cole said the judge's ruling does not invalidate the hundreds of other designated terrorist groups on the list but "calls them into question."
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said, "We are currently reviewing the decision and we have made no determination what the government's next step will be."
A White House spokeswoman declined to immediately comment. At the time of his order creating the list, Bush declared that the "grave acts of terrorism" and the "continuing and immediate threat of future attacks" constituted a national emergency.
The judge's 45-page ruling was a reversal of her own tentative findings last July in which she indicated she would uphold wide powers asserted by Bush under an anti-terror financing law. She delayed her ruling then to allow more legal briefs to be filed.
She also struck down the provision in which Bush had authorized the secretary of the treasury to designate anyone who "assists, sponsors or provides services to" or is "otherwise associated with" a designated group.
However, she let stand sections of the order that penalize those who provide "services" to designated terrorist groups. She said such services would include the humanitarian aid and rights training proposed by the plaintiffs.
The Humanitarian Law Project planned to appeal that part of the ruling, Cole said.
"We are pleased the court rejected many of the constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiffs, including their challenge to the government's ban on providing services to terrorist organizations," Miller said Tuesday. "However, we believe the court erred in finding that certain other aspects of the executive order were unconstitutional."
The ruling was still considered a victory, Cole said.
"Even in fighting terrorism the president cannot be given a blank check to blacklist anyone he considers a bad guy or a bad group and you can't imply guilt by association," Cole said.
In 2004, Collins ruled that portions of the Patriot Act were too vague and, even after Congress amended the act in 2005, she ruled the provisions remained too vague to be understood by a person of average intelligence and were therefore unconstitutional.
djv...how did you feel about the discovery at the white house of more than 900 secret fbi personnel files, including dossiers of prominent republicans?.... clinton illegally having over 200 confidential fbi files on republicans?...
you wonder how this never really saw the light of day...and how clinton wasn`t removed from office despite impeachment....
maybe,somebody has alot of dirt on alot of people...
you wonder how this never really saw the light of day...and how clinton wasn`t removed from office despite impeachment....
maybe,somebody has alot of dirt on alot of people...
Actually, I'm fine with that, weasel, as long as it is Republicans...
But, to stay on point here, I think when you set precedent like this administration is trying to do, you have to take things as they come down the road. There is no big picture thinking in this...it's the me syndrome gone wild. Do what we want, when we want, to whoever we want, and it's all secret, for everyone's good.
Wayne, didn't another judge more recently rule that the program was legal? Thought I read that. Maybe not.
Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228?206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221?212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed ? a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205?229 vote), and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148?285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate.
So, gw, you think he was acquitted of the heinous crime of lying about a bj because he had evidence of real corruption on the part of the republican witch hunters?
So, gw, you think he was acquitted of the heinous crime of lying about a bj because he had evidence of real corruption on the part of the republican witch hunters?
Where do read anything about BJ in impeachment above--or look at disbarrment nothing there either.
Is there a liberal dictionary out there that I am not aware of that say perjury-Obsrtuct of Justice equals BJ. You make about the 7th liberal and 2 (self acknlowledged)centrist that think along these lines.
Are there any other reasons that justifies presidents lying under oath and obstruction of justice - as no prob- in the liberal dictionary or is it any reason is justified depending who's in office.
--and if not for taking the 5th or failing to recall --Arkasas Alzeimer how many lies would thaey have caught them in--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Number of times Hillary Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in a statement to a House investigating committee: 50
- Number of paragraphs in this statement: 42
- Number of times Bill Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in the released portions of the his testimony on Paula Jones: 271
- Total number of facts or events not recalled before official bodies by Bill Kennedy, Harold Ickes, Ricki Seidman, Bruce Lindsey, Bill Burton, Mark Gearan, Mack McLarty, Neil Eggleston, John Podesta, Jennifer O'Connor, Dwight Holton, Patsy Thomasson, Jeff Eller, Beth Nolan, Cliff Sloan, Bernard Nussbaum, George Stephanopoulous, Roy Neel, Rahm Emanuel, Maggie Williams, David Tarbell, Susan Thomases, Webster Hubbell, Roger Altman, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton: 6,125
- Average occurrence of memory lapse by top administration figures while before official bodies: 235
Is there a liberal dictionary out there that I am not aware of that say perjury-Obsrtuct of Justice equals BJ. You make about the 7th liberal and 2 (self acknlowledged)centrist that think along these lines.
Are there any other reasons that justifies presidents lying under oath and obstruction of justice - as no prob- in the liberal dictionary or is it any reason is justified depending who's in office.
--and if not for taking the 5th or failing to recall --Arkasas Alzeimer how many lies would thaey have caught them in--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Number of times Hillary Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in a statement to a House investigating committee: 50
- Number of paragraphs in this statement: 42
- Number of times Bill Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in the released portions of the his testimony on Paula Jones: 271
- Total number of facts or events not recalled before official bodies by Bill Kennedy, Harold Ickes, Ricki Seidman, Bruce Lindsey, Bill Burton, Mark Gearan, Mack McLarty, Neil Eggleston, John Podesta, Jennifer O'Connor, Dwight Holton, Patsy Thomasson, Jeff Eller, Beth Nolan, Cliff Sloan, Bernard Nussbaum, George Stephanopoulous, Roy Neel, Rahm Emanuel, Maggie Williams, David Tarbell, Susan Thomases, Webster Hubbell, Roger Altman, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton: 6,125
- Average occurrence of memory lapse by top administration figures while before official bodies: 235
Only point I was asking for clarification on. The law professors left/right That seem to say/think Bush is more at risk for impeachment then Nixon or Clinton. What I'm trying to see is why? Do they have direct info where Bush Ok'd torture of prisoners and illegal wire-taping. What info do they have.
"Is there a liberal dictionary out there that I am not aware of that say perjury-Obsrtuct of Justice equals BJ."
He lied about having sexual relations with Monica...did you miss that detail?
He lied about having sexual relations with Monica...did you miss that detail?
